New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

Where is the proof that she let classified information be compromised? If someone breaks a law, you have to show proof.

 

All you have to do in order to be guilty is to place classified information on a non secured server. We know she transmitted classified information and received classified information via her own private server....it's inherently a violation of the law. We know her attitude towards classified information given that we have emails where she told staffers to remove classified markings from documents (illegal to even ask someone to do) and send the document via non secure fax (also illegal to even ask someone to do). This is a foolish battle for you to try and fight. She's 100% guilty of mishandling classified information and they have thousands of documents that ended up in her private possession that were not secured.....there's just no way to spin this one man. Say that you don't care how guilty she is, say that you don't care that she belongs in jail, say that she's still better than Trump. Those things are at least honest. Don't try to spin this by suggesting she's not guilty. It either insults your audience's intelligence, or your own.

 

You see, this is why your version is not the gospel truth. But, that's OK, Bobby. What you choose to do about the entire situation is state your opinion on the topic based on the facts you select, and then put on this pseudo-condescending act to say that if we don't agree with your version of things, it's because we're being ignorant. There are enough facts on either side to deem that this entire matter should have been brought to trial- short of that, I'm certainly not going to take the word of someone who has not studied the case in detail well enough to make a qualified judgment.

I would certainly accept and respect your opinion if you had done enough research on the matter or were an expert in the field of law this falls under- but you didn't, and you're not. Feel free to have the last word on the matter.

 

LOL, I'll just say that I love it when people who truly don't know what they are talking about stick to their talking points like you have. It's adorable, and in some ways your blind loyalty is even admirable.

If you had ever had to deal with highly sensitive, highly classified information and you got the training to do so then you'd probably know just a whole lot more about the situation. Unfortunately that's clearly not the case. You are just a partisan regurgitating the most recent BS that someone fed you in order to try and spin a candidate you support from a party you support blatantly breaking the law. Maybe you truly don't know that's what you are doing, I can't say for sure, but it's pretty ridiculous.

Of course there's no point trying to talk sense into you, for people like you it always comes down to a "D" or an "R". If a Republican had done literally the same thing, you'd be on my side with this and your talking points would be entirely different. Since it's a Democrat, the spin from you is different. There simply is no case that Hillary did not knowingly send and receive classified information on a private non secured server and doing so is 100% illegal for everyone else in the world. Keep spinning if you think it'll do you some good, but you can't change the basic facts.

 

Yes... Just Like Bill Cosby...

 

Unfortunately for you, the DNC has sided with Bobby labeling you as ignorant. Your quarrel is with the party you choose to blindly support and who laughs at you behind your back.

 

weiner was clearly working for pootin. it's all a ruskie conspiracy to ruin our (s)election process!

 

The gamut of responses to Comey below. The once highly respected FBI is failing under his name and it's all his doing by cracking under political pressure and taking an investigation public back in July. Now he's under political pressure to go public again to explain himself.

 

1- FBI have NOT obtained and reviewed emails.
2- Thus, don't know significance of emails

Both campaign demand what's in the emails now. One side is confident there is nothing. The other side is confident there is something. There is no way he is going to be able to review, I assume, thousands of emails in a few days. Of course, the advantage is to Trump just to provide the impression of something could be wrong.

This is all unnecessary. He can do his due diligent, get the email, review and then open up the investigation if necessary. Not everything should be played in public sphere of speculation. Complete mismanagement and failure of understanding impact of his actions - if indeed unintended.


Read Comey’s letter to FBI employees below.

 

Seems Obama cancelled all the Hillary Clinton stump speeches. Hmmm...

http://prntly.com/2016/10/29/breaki...ppearances-after-the-news-of-hillary-and-fbi/

 

All of the comey is bought off people have to be stumped now.

His announcement without any context could actually cost Clinton the election. Guess she didn't pay him enough.

 

Lol the obamas are still doing events upcoming.

 

Comey didn't follow dept policy and practices that formalized a standard practice of not even having an appearance of interfering with election.

I agree with @justtxyank that this could actually turn this election completely from safe for Clinton to a toss-up now. If I'm were the Dem, I would go after Comey hard. He played politic, intentionally or not and he's now part of it.


http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...oretta-lynch-and-justice-department-tradition

 

I'm not going to fault Comey except for the vagueness of his message. I think he's in a tight spot and would've gotten even more heavily criticized if he didn't announce they were looking further into this until well after the election. Even though I'm a Clinton supporter I think his attempt at transparency is the right thing to do even if the timing looks suspicious. What would help both him and the situation in general though is a thorough explanation of what exactly the FBI is looking into and how it's tied to the Clinton investigation.

My own feeling is that nothing will come out of this. This certainly hurts Clinton but I think most people have already made their decision and given the vagueness of this won't chang their opions.

 

Do you really think the same Comey who months prior said he was not going to move forward on the email situation would openly come out and say he was reopening the case 11 days prior to election date had he not found something?

They found something and he is saving his butt!

 

They're trying this again?

 

Well, when you lie, you don't get the last word on the matter. First, you are the last person to lecture anyone about sticking to talking points. We on this board have had to deal with your year-over-year regurgitation Andre Johnson or any number of topics. You are the poster child for beating dead horses. The notion that you, of anyone, could lecture anyone else about "talking points" obsession would be laughable if it wasn't so hypocritical.

Second, using a phrase such as "people like you" demonstrates mental weakness. Obviously, you have little to zero idea of my political opinions and leanings on this board - people who always vote D don't vote for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. People who always vote D don't vote for Rick Perry for Governor (I regret than one). People who always vote D vote a straight-party ticket, which I did not do 5 days ago. So, my suggestion for you would be to know of what you speak before you say things that make you look foolish.

In addition, you must have missed my post in which I stated that Donald Trump should not be presumed guilty of molesting the 11 women who have come forward to accuse him unless the matter is brought to trial. I would think that a person for whom everything comes down to a D or R would not be inclined to support said opinion. So, you seem to be a bit wrong on that one also.

But where you truly show your ignorance, including this and the various incidents involving police-black citizen altercations, is that you draw definitive conclusions as facts based on the limited evidence you have. To provide you with a political science lecture, the Federal Bureau of Investigation does not prosecute cases. Its job is to conduct investigations and provide recommendations to attorneys, who then make the decision on whether to prosecute. You are basing your conclusions on half of the equation. Based on your logic, there is no need for a 3rd branch of government b/c, if the cops or the FBI say it happened that way, it stops there.

What someone like myself does who actually cares about getting to the truth is conduct the research and draw the conclusions based on that. When you research this matter, as I have done, the only conclusion one can draw is that there is not a clear-cut conclusion. Newsmax finds her guilty, Politico finds her innocent, and non-partisan sites are split.

It is irritating to have to explain all this to you, but when you construct a response rift with falsehoods, it cannot go unanswered. You can go ahead and continue to response falsely, and you'll continue to see my responses.